Dear Matthias,
apologies for *firing* this off.
I'm switching back and forth between PLT Scheme and Lispworks (CL) and just to make it up to you I'll show you what I just *fired* at Xanalys five minutes before:
Hi,
I heard that one of the differences between Scheme and CL is that Scheme is "proper tail recursive" and CL isn't. Until today I'm not 100% what that could mean but I think I'm seeing an effect of it here.
(defun my-make-list (n)
(cond
((< n 1) nil)
(t (cons nil (my-make-list (- n 1))))))
If I run this on Lispworks with let's say merely n=200 I get a stack overflow, if I run it in Scheme with +100000 I just have to wait a little, but no stack overflow.
What I really do like about CL and Scheme is the excessive use of recursion, and the parenthesis too.
Does this mean I need to switch back to iteration when dealing with lists of over 200 elements in CL?
Setting the *stack-size* to a higher level?
If so ............. STUFF THAT!!!
Guenther
Matthias Felleisen wrote:
> For list-related administrative tasks:
>http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme>> Use Pretty Big for now. -- Matthias
>> On Saturday, December 6, 2003, at 07:20 PM, Guenther Schmidt wrote:
>>> For list-related administrative tasks:
>>http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme>>>> ..... in HTDP.
>>>> But as soon as one switches to MrED it turns out that's not even part
>> of the standard.
>>>> What exactly was the point of teaching us empty? and empty ?
>>>> I mean I'm sure that I will find a function that is the equivalent of
>> the above because there just has to be, but what was the point?
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Guenther
>>>> BTW I figure it is "null"
>>>>